In some cases, the water-use efficiency increases caused by atmospheric CO2 enrichment are spectacularly high. De Luis et al. (1999)[1], for example, demonstrated that alfalfa plants subjected to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 700 ppm had water-use efficiencies that were 2.6 and 4.1 times greater than those displayed by control plants growing at 400 ppm CO2 under water-stressed and well-watered conditions, respectively. Also, when grown at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 700 ppm, a 2.7-fold increase in water-use efficiency was reported by Malmstrom and Field (1997)[2] for oats infected with the barley yellow dwarf virus.

Going back in time to the final few years of the 20th century, Schaffer et al. (1997)[1] grew two mango ecotypes - one evolving from a warm, humid tropical climate, and the other from a cool, dry subtropical region - for 12 months in glasshouses maintained at either 350 or 700 ppm CO2 in order to determine the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the trees' growth and leaf mineral nutrient concentrations. In doing so, they found that in addition to the greater net carbon gains of the CO2-enriched trees, the elevated CO2 tended to decrease foliar concentrations of mineral nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Cl, Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu and B) in both mango cultivars, most likely due to a dilution effect, since atmospheric CO2 enrichment increased leaf dry mass. But with respect to this latter finding, the scientists who conducted the study wrote that "given the slow rate at which global atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing, it is possible that plants will adapt to this phenomenon over time with respect to mineral nutrition," as actually was found to be the case in a prior study of sour orange trees after 85 months of exposure to elevated CO2 (Penuelas et al., 1997).

Among the many climate-alarmist fears of CO2-induced global warming is the concern that the productivity of the biosphere will decline if global temperatures rise to the extent predicted by computer models. Yet, for many alarmists, the future is the present. Since 1980, for example, the Earth has weathered three of the warmest decades in the instrumental temperature record, a handful of intense and persistent El Niño events, large-scale deforestation, "unprecedented" forest fires, and the eruption of several volcanoes. Concurrently, the air's CO2 content increased by 16%, while human population grew by 55%. So just how bad is the biosphere suffering in response to these much-feared events? Or, is it even suffering at all?

In 2006, when I first made the mistake of writing publicly of my doubts about the Party Line on manmade global warming, I began to receive 100 emails a day from interested members of the public – and of the scientific community. I have been doing my best to answer the best of them ever since.

One was from Dr. Dennis Ray Wingo of NASA. He told me the magnetic convection currents beneath both hemispheres of the Sun had slowed to walking pace. This was unprecedented in the record. He expected that solar cycles would lengthen and the vigor of solar activity would decline, perhaps for up to 60 years.

Aside from rejecting biofuel expansion and use for environmental reasons (see Biofuels (Land and Water Concerns)[1] and Biofuels (Miscellaneous)[2] in our Subject Index), the production and use of biofuels from an economic perspective does not make much sense either. Proponents of biofuels say their increased production will increase the supply of transportation fuels and therefore lead to lower prices. Critics of biofuels point out ethanol often costs more, not less, than gasoline, either because of production costs or supplies that can't keep pace with government mandates, and therefore leads to higher prices at least in the short run.

One of the grandest of catastrophes that climate alarmists contend will result from CO2-induced global warming – which they predict will be unprecedented in terms of both the speed and level of warmth attained – is that many species of plants will not be able to migrate poleward in latitude or upward in altitude fast enough to remain within regions with temperature regimes suitable for their continued existence; and, therefore, they predict that many of them will likely be driven to extinction. But what if earth's plants can evolve? ... and evolve fast enough to shift their ranges at a rate commensurate with the rate at which temperatures may be warming? Or what if they can adjust their inner workings so as to be able to tolerate more heat than they seem to be capable of doing nowadays? These key questions are explored in detail in the papers that are briefly reviewed below.

Was there really a global Medieval Warm Period? The IPCC used to acknowledge there was; but they have long since changed their view on the subject. Mounting evidence, however, suggests they were wrong to do so; and in this summary, new and important data from Southern Europe that support their original belief are described and discussed.

As the air's CO2 content continues to rise, nearly all plants will respond by reducing their leaf stomatal apertures, through which water vapor exiting the leaf and carbon dioxide entering the leaf diffuse during transpiration and photosynthesis, respectively. This phenomenon typically leads to an increase in water use efficiency at elevated CO2 concentrations, because with more CO2 in the air, plants don't need to open their stomates as wide as they do at lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations to allow for sufficient inward diffusion of CO2 for use in photosynthesis. And as a consequence of this phenomenon, plants typically exhibit reductions in transpirational water loss, smaller yield losses attributable to the uptake of aerial pollutants, and increases in water-use efficiency. This summary document thus reviews some of the scientific literature pertaining to this important effect of elevated CO2 on the stomatal conductances of agricultural crops.

According to the IPCC, CO2-induced global warming will be net harmful to the world's marine species. This summary examines this hypothesis for various marine animals, presenting evidence in opposition to the IPCC's point of view.

Was there really a global Medieval Warm Period? The IPCC used to acknowledge there was; but they have long since changed their view on the subject. Mounting evidence, however, suggests they were wrong to do so; and in this summary, new and important data from Central Europe that support their original belief are described and discussed.

As the air's CO2 content continues to rise, nearly all of earth's plants should exhibit increases in photosynthesis and biomass production; but climate alarmists periodically claim that water stress will negate these benefits. In reviewing the scientific literature of the ten-year period 1983-1994, however, Idso and Idso (1994) concluded that water stress will not negate the CO2-induced stimulation of plant productivity. In fact, they discovered that the CO2-induced percentage increase in plant productivity was nearly always greater under water-stressed conditions than it was when plants were well-watered. And seven years later, Poorter and Perez-Soba (2001)[1] conducted a similar literature review and came to the same conclusion. In this summary, therefore, we provide some background for this phenomenon and highlight some of the most impressive work that has subsequently been done in this area.

Kerslake et al. (1998)[1] grew five-year-old heather (Calluna vulgaris) plants that they collected from a Scottish moor within open-top chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 600 ppm, where at two different times during the study, larvae of the destructive winter moth Operophtera brumata - whose outbreaks periodically cause extensive damage to heather moorland - were allowed to feed upon current-year shoots. Interestingly, feeding upon the high-CO2-grown foliage did not affect larval growth rates, development or final pupal weights; neither was moth survivorship significantly altered. Hence, the three researchers concluded that their study provided "no evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will affect the potential for outbreak of Operophtera brumata on this host." What it did show, however, was a significant CO2-induced increase in heather water use efficiency.

Was there really a global Medieval Warm Period? The IPCC used to acknowledge there was; but they have long since changed their view on the subject. Mounting evidence, however, suggests they were wrong to do so; and in this summary, both old and new important data from Northern Europe that support their original belief are described and discussed.

As part of one of the most outstanding of such studies ever to be conducted, Finzi and Schlesinger (2003)1 measured and analyzed pool sizes and fluxes of inorganic and organic nitrogen in the forest floor and top 30 cm of mineral soil during the first five years of differential atmospheric CO2 treatment of a stand of initially 13-year-old loblolly pine trees at the Duke Forest FACE facility in the Piedmont region of North Carolina (USA), where half of the experimental plots were maintained at an atmospheric CO2 concentration approximately 200 ppm above ambient. Under these conditions, they found that the extra CO2 significantly increased the input of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) to the forest floor, as well as to the mineral soil in which the trees were growing.

According to Storch et al. (2009)[1], "temperature is often invoked as the main determinant of distribution ranges and boundaries for marine and terrestrial species," and they note the larval stages of many marine species "are more vulnerable to thermal and osmotic stresses than adults." Consequently, they explored the rigidity of this temperature determinant of livable range for the Chilean kelp crab (Taliepus dentatus) in its most temperature-sensitive larval state.

How efficient is it to produce energy from biofuels-is it more, less, or about the same as from traditional fossil fuels? This mini review summarizes what several scientists have learned when investigating this topic.

According to the IPCC, CO2-induced global warming will be net harmful to the world's marine species. One consequence of such harm, is a projected decline in ocean productivity. And in light of what the IPCC frequently refers to as the unprecedented modern rise in global temperature, it might reasonably be expected there should already be signs of a major negative impact on oceanic productivity. Yet the studies highlighted in this summary yield little evidence in support of the IPCC point of view.

In an article entitled "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt," Fargione et al. (2008)[1] explore what happens when non-agricultural lands are cleared for the growing of biofuel crops. In addition to the destruction of precious habitat needed to support what could be called "wild nature," this process releases large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere due to the burning and microbial decomposition of organic carbon stored in plant biomass and soils. And this initial "carbon debt" must be repaid before there is any net reduction in CO2 emissions from the use of the biofuel crops grown on the newly-cleared land.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a global climatic anomaly that encompassed a few centuries on either side of AD 1000, when temperatures in many parts of the world were even warmer than they are currently. The degree of warmth and associated changes in precipitation, however, sometimes varied from region to region, with the result that the MWP was expressed somewhat differently now and then in different parts of the world. How it manifested itself in Japan is the subject of this Summary.